When Democratic presidents have tackled issues of inequality, they have usually come under intense attack. That is the cost of trying to address this problem through government. (Republicans argue this is best left to the marketplace.) The key to success has been how strong the Democrats' responses to the critics have been.

When Democratic presidents have tackled issues of inequality, they have usually come under intense attack. That is the cost of trying to address this problem through government. (Republicans argue this is best left to the marketplace.) The key to success has been how strong the Democrats' responses to the critics have been.

Now that everyone has "equal" access to health care, now we can do the same for the homeless. Now that judge Roberts has set the precedent with Obamacare, he can continue that tradition by having the government insist that everyone buy a home.....er.....um.....pay a tax to called the "home tax". Those that cannot afford to pay this tax will be subsidized by the taxpayer....er....um....the government.

When Democratic presidents have tackled issues of inequality, they have usually come under intense attack. That is the cost of trying to address this problem through government. (Republicans argue this is best left to the marketplace.) The key to success has been how strong the Democrats' responses to the critics have been.

There are no classes in the US and in most western democracies. There are only people with and without a lot of money. There is no structure. People are free to move between classes if they are able to do so.

The whole "class warfare" discussion is absurd on its face. I understand that market forces have made upward mobility in the US more difficult than it used to be and more difficult than in some other countries and that's unfortunate. But to frame the debate (as OWS does) as us poor against them rich (or vice versa) misses the point.

We should focus on giving people the opportunity the make their own lives better along with a basic social safety net for those who are incapable of helping themselves; not on dictating the levels of wealth that are or are not acceptable.

Originally posted by sh76There are no classes in the US and in most western democracies. There are only people with and without a lot of money. There is no structure. People are free to move between classes if they are able to do so.

The whole "class warfare" discussion is absurd on its face. I understand that market forces have made upward mobility in the US more difficult than it ...[text shortened]... apable of helping themselves; not on dictating the level wealth that is or is not acceptable.

Originally posted by sh76There are no classes in the US and in most western democracies. There are only people with and without a lot of money. There is no structure. People are free to move between classes if they are able to do so.

The whole "class warfare" discussion is absurd on its face. I understand that market forces have made upward mobility in the US more difficult than it ...[text shortened]... of helping themselves; not on dictating the levels of wealth that are or are not acceptable.

Originally posted by sh76There are no classes in the US and in most western democracies. There are only people with and without a lot of money. There is no structure. People are free to move between classes if they are able to do so.

The whole "class warfare" discussion is absurd on its face. I understand that market forces have made upward mobility in the US more difficult than it ...[text shortened]... of helping themselves; not on dictating the levels of wealth that are or are not acceptable.

Sorry , are you being ironic, there are no classes in the US and in most western democracies . The key I suppose is 'most western democracies' , the UK which does have a rigid class structure , is not a democracy since its second chamber The House of Lords has over 700 unelected members of which there are 92 hereditary peers ( so we are clear ,unelected knobs) , so if you don't include the UK you could be right.

Originally posted by kaminskySorry , are you being ironic, there are no classes in the US and in most western democracies . The key I suppose is 'most western democracies' , the UK which does have a rigid class structure , is not a democracy since its second chamber The House of Lords has over 700 unelected members of which there are 92 hereditary peers ( so we are clear ,unelected knobs) , so if you don't include the UK you could be right.

Heck, in that case every western democracy with a monarchy has "classes" - including Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.

Originally posted by kaminskySorry , are you being ironic, there are no classes in the US and in most western democracies . The key I suppose is 'most western democracies' , the UK which does have a rigid class structure , is not a democracy since its second chamber The House of Lords has over 700 unelected members of which there are 92 hereditary peers ( so we are clear ,unelected knobs) , so if you don't include the UK you could be right.

The House of Lords is mostly a figurehead body. The real power is in the Commons.

The House of Lords can delay a bill from the House of Commons by has much as a year, IN PLAIN ENGLISH ,AN UNELECTED BODY CAN DELAY A BILL PASSED BY AN ELECTED BODY BY ONE YEAR , and it happens. If you think I'm silly for objecting to this well thats just me.

Originally posted by kaminskySorry , are you being ironic, there are no classes in the US and in most western democracies . The key I suppose is 'most western democracies' , the UK which does have a rigid class structure , is not a democracy since its second chamber The House of Lords has over 700 unelected members of which there are 92 hereditary peers ( so we are clear ,unelected knobs) , so if you don't include the UK you could be right.

In what sense does the UK have a "rigid class structure"? I agree that because of a lack resources that make it more difficult to compete from an early age, children born into poverty are disadvantaged when it comes to social mobility.

But you are giving the impression that there is some kind of Caste system in operation.

I think that we inhabit a class system, and that class warfare on a political level i.e poor people identifying as such and using the political system to the advantage of the poor is good thing.

The needs of the rich/minority should be secondary to the needs of the poor/majority, that is not class warfare that is democracy.